Skip to main content
Taylor & Francis Open Select logoLink to Taylor & Francis Open Select
. 2015 Dec 22;20(8):572–589. doi: 10.3109/1354750X.2015.1130191

Label-free proteomic analysis of the hydrophobic membrane protein complement in articular chondrocytes: a technique for identification of membrane biomarkers

Csaba Matta a,b,*,#, Xiaofei Zhang c,*,#,, Susan Liddell c, Julia R Smith d, Ali Mobasheri a,e,f,#,*
PMCID: PMC4819840  PMID: 26864288

Abstract

Context: There is insufficient knowledge about the chondrocyte membranome and its molecular composition.

Objective: To develop a Triton X-114 based separation technique using nanoLC-MS/MS combined with shotgun proteomics to identify chondrocyte membrane proteins.

Materials and methods: Articular chondrocytes from equine metacarpophalangeal joints were separated into hydrophobic and hydrophilic fractions; trypsin-digested proteins were analysed by nanoLC-MS/MS.

Results: A total of 315 proteins were identified. The phase extraction method yielded a high proportion of membrane proteins (56%) including CD276, S100-A6 and three VDAC isoforms.

Discussion: Defining the chondrocyte membranome is likely to reveal new biomarker targets for conventional and biological drug discovery.

Keywords: Articular cartilage, chondrocyte, equine, mass spectrometry, membranome, membrane protein extraction, proteomics, Triton X-114

Introduction

Proteins that are embedded in or associated with biological membranes play critically important roles in a wide range of vital cellular functions including transport, cell–cell communication and signalling processes. As the plasma membrane (PM) acts as the first barrier to the extracellular environment, PM proteins enable cells to sense and respond to external stimuli in a specific manner – they include receptors; cell recognition, cell–cell or cell–matrix adhesion sites; enzymes; as well as channels, pores and transporters for ions, small molecules and nutrients (Cordwell & Thingholm, 2010). Based on domain predictions by different methods, membrane proteins comprise approx. 15–30% of the human proteome (Almen et al., 2009; Kabbani, 2008), highlighting the fundamental importance of membrane-associated physiological processes. PM proteins are also the primary targets of many of the drugs that are currently in our pharmaceutical arsenal; indeed, the majority (over 70%) of currently marketed drugs act on PM proteins (Almen et al., 2009; Rabilloud, 2003). The qualitative and quantitative composition of the PM proteome is known to be significantly altered during cellular differentiation and disease. Membrane proteins have the potential to be selective and sensitive biomarkers for disease progression and prognosis. Furthermore, membrane proteins that exhibit altered expression in disease states could be suitable candidates for the development of sensitive receptor-targeted imaging agents for non-invasive monitoring of biological and inflammatory processes (Dissoki et al., 2015; Samkoe et al., 2014; Sega & Low, 2008). Therefore, there is a critical need for the development of tools and technologies for identification and characterisation of membrane proteins to complement physiological methods for elucidating their functions. This combined approach will promote the discovery of new and better drugs, and the development of novel treatment strategies of diseases.

Integral membrane proteins have an amphiphilic structure; apart from hydrophilic domains located on the external cytosolic or organellar surfaces, they also contain hydrophobic (membrane-spanning) regions that directly interact with the lipid bilayer of the membranes in which they are embedded. High-resolution and high-throughput proteomic techniques have been widely applied to study the PM proteome of various cell types [for a review please see Cordwell & Thingholm (2010)]. However, there are serious (mainly technical) limitations that currently hinder advances in this field. In addition to their very low relative abundance, their amphiphilic nature and poor solubility makes membrane proteins challenging to purify, identify and characterise on a proteomic scale. The use of non-ionic detergents (e.g. the Triton X series in which the number of hydrophilic oxyethylene units attached to the hydrophobic octylphenyl residue determines the specific physicochemical properties) has enabled the solubilisation and characterisation of these proteins. Their use is based on the principle that water-soluble proteins, unlike amphiphilic membrane proteins, show little or no interaction with these compounds; consequently, only integral membrane proteins form mixed micelles with non-ionic detergents (Bordier, 1981). The cloud point, the temperature at which phase separation occurs between the detergent and the aqueous phase, is at approximately 20 °C for Triton X-114, which makes its application particularly convenient in studies aimed at analysing integral membrane proteins (Bordier, 1981; English et al., 2012; Mathias et al., 2011).

In addition to the application of non-ionic detergents, a number of other approaches have been developed over the past decades for the selective enrichment of membrane proteins including precipitation and gradient centrifugation, biotinylation and affinity enrichment or the application of glycoproteomics [reviewed in Cordwell & Thingholm (2010)]. The main technical challenge remaining in the analysis of integral membrane subproteomes, however, is the ability to obtain high purity membrane protein samples without the presence of high abundance contaminating proteins from the cytoplasm or other intracellular organelles. Comprehensive analyses of the membrane protein complement (also known as the membranome) of distinct cell types are relatively scarce; this can at least partially be attributed to the challenges and limitations described above. It is particularly true for chondrocytes, the single cell type in articular cartilage that serves as a specialised load-bearing tissue with unique tribological properties such as a low-friction gliding surface and peculiar rheology in synovial joints. The extracellular matrix (ECM) of hyaline cartilage, in which chondrocytes are embedded, primarily consists of a meshwork of type II collagen fibres and other minor collagens (types VI, IX and XI); large aggregating proteoglycans (e.g. aggrecan) and their constituent glycosaminoglycans (GAGs); as well as high quantities of osmotically bound water (approx. 70% of the net weight of ECM) and counteracting cations attracted by the net negative charge of GAGs (Archer & Francis-West, 2003). Because of its avascular nature and the inability of mature chondrocytes to divide in situ, once damaged, articular cartilage seldom regenerates on its own. Therefore, lesions due to either osteoarthritis (OA) or traumatic injuries are associated with progressive degeneration of articular cartilage, pain and disability. OA is still an unresolved clinical problem, and developing novel therapies or drug targets poses a major challenge (Mobasheri, 2013).

In order to identify proteins involved in pathological processes affecting the structure and function of articular cartilage such as OA, it is first necessary to characterise the normal protein complement of chondrocytes in healthy tissues. For proteomic studies, cartilage is very challenging as the chondrocyte, its sole cell type, forms only 1–2% of the volume of the tissue (Lambrecht et al., 2010). Although the proteome of healthy (Lambrecht et al., 2010; Ruiz-Romero et al., 2005) and OA-affected chondrocytes (Lambrecht et al., 2008; Ruiz-Romero et al., 2008; Tsolis et al., 2015), as well as the secretory profile (secretome) of a cartilage tissue explant model of OA (Williams et al., 2013) has been published, the “hidden” proteome, i.e. low-abundance membrane proteins or other poorly soluble proteins may have remained undiscovered in those studies. Here, we report a technique for profiling integral membrane proteins in primary equine articular chondrocytes using an optimised Triton X-114 phase partitioning technique and LC-MS/MS analysis for protein identification. To the best of our knowledge, this work represents the first and most comprehensive analysis of the integral membrane subproteome in chondrocytes reported. This technique allowed us to establish CD276, S100-A6 (calcyclin) and three VDAC isoforms as key components of the chondrocyte membranome.

Materials and methods

Isolation and culture of primary equine articular chondrocytes

Articular chondrocytes were isolated from equine articular cartilage. The animal used in this study was euthanized in a UK-based abattoir for research-unrelated purposes, and stunned before slaughter in accordance with Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995. Ethical approval for the use of abattoir-derived animal tissues was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the School of Veterinary Science and Medicine, University of Nottingham, with input from members of the University of Nottingham Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB). After opening the metacarpophalangeal joint cavity under aseptic conditions and rinsing the articular cartilage surface with sterile physiological saline, articular cartilage shavings were taken from the distal end of the metacarpal bone using a sterile surgical blade and placed in serum-free DMEM (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA) supplemented with 4% Penicillin/Streptomycin solution (P/S, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) pre-warmed to 37 °C as described previously (Williams et al., 2013). The shavings (∼100 μm thick, ∼5 mm in diameter) were taken from the superficial part of macroscopically normal cartilage areas without any visible signs of degeneration, including discolouration, fibrillation and surface irregularities, to avoid the deep (calcified) layers of articular cartilage or the cartilage–bone interface. The surface of articular cartilage did not receive treatment prior to sampling to preserve the lamina splendens (the uppermost surface layer of articular cartilage) (Dunham et al., 1988).

Cartilage shavings were washed three times with sterile PBS containing 10% P/S. Articular chondrocytes were isolated by overnight incubation with 0.1% type II collagenase (from Clostridium histolyticum; Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) dissolved in serum-free DMEM containing 4% P/S solution at 37 °C. Following dissociation of cartilage shavings by trituration the solution was filtered through a 70-μm nylon mesh filter to yield a single cell suspension, and centrifuged at 800 ×g for 5 min at room temperature. After washing twice in serum-free DMEM, cells were resuspended in DMEM containing 10% foetal calf serum (FCS; Invitrogen) and 2% P/S solution, seeded into tissue culture flasks (Nunc; Thermo Fisher Scientific), and cultured in a CO2 incubator at 37 °C. Cells were subcultured when they reached approx. 80% confluency. The media was changed on every second day. Cells from the second passage were used for further experiments. A schematic overview of the experimental design is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Schematic overview of the experimental design used in this study.

Sample preparation, phase partitioning using triton X-114, and methanol/chloroform extraction

Approximately 80% confluent cultures of primary equine articular chondrocytes from passage 2 were washed with PBS, then 2 mL of PBS containing 80 μL of protease inhibitor cocktail (25×, Sigma-Aldrich) was added to the flasks. The flasks were placed on ice, and cells were liberated using a cell scraper (Greiner, Stonehouse, UK). The solution was centrifuged (at 850 ×g for 2 min, room temperature), and the pellet was resuspended in 600 μL of PBS containing 24 μL of 25 × protease inhibitor cocktail. After incubating on ice for 15 min, the suspension was transferred into a glass homogeniser and the cells were lysed.

Following the addition of Triton X-114 (Sigma-Aldrich) at a final concentration of 0.75%, the lysate was incubated on ice for 30 min with vortexing every 5 min. After centrifugation (30 min, 10 000 ×g, 4 °C) the supernatant was retained and incubated at 37 °C for 5 min, and then on ice for 15 min. The sample was centrifuged again (30 min, 10 000 ×g, 4 °C) and the supernatant was incubated at 37 °C for 5 min. Following centrifugation for 3 min (1000 ×g, room temperature), two layers appeared. The upper layer (aqueous phase) contained the hydrophilic proteins, the lower layer (detergent phase) contained the hydrophobic proteins. To maximise the recovery of membrane proteins, the upper layer was extracted further by adding Triton X-114 at a final concentration of 0.75% and the phase partitioning procedure was repeated. Finally, the two lower layers were combined together to constitute the hydrophobic fraction, and the upper layer was treated as the hydrophilic fraction.

To remove Triton X-114 from the samples, four times the sample volume of methanol (Thermo Fisher Scientific) was added to both fractions. After centrifugation at 15 000 ×g for 10 s at room temperature, two times the original sample volume of chloroform (Sigma-Aldrich) was added. The mixture was centrifuged again, and after adding three times the original sample volume of HPLC grade water, the sample was centrifuged for 5 min (15 000 ×g, room temperature). The proteins accumulated at the interface between the two layers formed during the last centrifugation step. Following removal of the upper layer, three times the sample volume of methanol was added, and after spinning for 5 min (15 000 ×g, 4 °C), the pellet containing the proteins was retained and air-dried.

Quantification of proteins

After methanol/chloroform extraction, the pellets were dissolved in sample resuspension buffer containing 4% SDS (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Hercules, CA), 0.2 M Tris pH 7.4 (Bio-Rad) and 0.15 M NaOH (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Protein concentration in the samples was determined using the Bio-Rad DC Protein Assay Kit according to the manufacturer’s protocol (Bio-Rad). The absorbance of the assayed samples at 655 nm was read using a Bio-Rad Benchmark Microplate Reader.

Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS–PAGE)

Loading buffer containing 4 × Laemmli buffer and 3 M dithiothreitol (DTT; Bio-Rad) was added to each sample (typically, 4.8 μL 4 × Laemmli buffer and 1.2 μL 3M DTT was added to 18 μL sample resuspension buffer), and then proteins were fractionated by SDS–PAGE on a 12% polyacrylamide gel. Proteins were initially run at 32 mA constant current, and once the dye front reached the bottom of the stacking gel, the current was increased to 45 mA. Protein bands were visualised by silver staining using a Hoefer Processor Plus automated gel stainer (Amersham, GE Healthcare Life Sciences, UK). The protocol for silver staining was performed as described previously (Yan et al., 2000).

Preparation and trypsin digestion of proteins for LC-MS/MS analysis: in-solution digestion

The protein pellets from the methanol/chloroform extraction step were resuspended in a solution of 50 mM ammonium bicarbonate (AMBIC) (Sigma-Aldrich) and 10 mM DTT (Bio-Rad), and incubated at 37 °C for 30 min, vortexing every 10 min. Following the addition of iodoacetamide (IAA, Bio-Rad) at a final concentration of 55 mM, samples were incubated at 37 °C for 45 min in dark. Then, 1.2 mL of –20 °C acetone was added to each sample, and after mixing, the samples were incubated at 4 °C overnight. Protein precipitates were pelleted by centrifugation at 15 000 ×g for 5 min at 4 °C. Pellets were air-dried for 1 min, and then resuspended in 20 μL of trypsin buffer including 50 mM AMBIC and 10 ng/μL Trypsin Gold (Promega, Madison, WA). Samples were vortexed until the pellets were fully dissolved and then incubated at 37 °C for 16 h. Finally, 1 μL of formic acid (1%) was added to each sample to stop the reaction. Samples were stored at –80 °C until analysis.

LC-MS/MS analysis

Samples were injected into a 15 cm C18 Pepmap column using a Bruker Easy-nanoLC UltiMate® (Bruker, Coventry, UK) 3000 RSLCnano chromatography platform with a flow rate of 300 nL/min to separate peptides. Three microlitres of each sample was injected into the HPLC column. After peptide binding and washing processes on the column, the complex peptide mixture was separated and eluted by a gradient of solution A (100% water + 0.1% formic acid) and solution B (100% ACN + 0.1% formic acid) over 115 min, followed by column washing and re-equilibration. The peptides were delivered to a Bruker amaZon ETD ion trap instrument (Bruker, Coventry, UK). The top five most intense ions from each MS scan were selected for fragmentation. The nanoLC-MS/MS analysis was performed three times on the samples (all triplicates).

Peptide and protein identification, data analysis and bioinformatics

Processed data were compiled into *.MGF files and submitted to the Mascot search engine (version: 2.4.1) and compared to mammalian entries in the SwissProt and NCBInr databases. The data search parameters were as follows: two missed trypsin cleavage sites; peptide tolerance, ±0.3 Da; number of C13 =1; peptide charge, 1+, 2 + and 3 + ions. Carbamidomethyl cysteine was specified as a fixed modification, and oxidised methionine and deamidated asparagine and glutamine residues were specified as variable modifications. Individual ions Mascot scores above 50 indicated identity or extensive homology. Only protein identifications with probability-based protein family Mascot MOWSE scores above the significant threshold of  >50 (p <0.05) were accepted. After mass spectrometric identification, 315 proteins were classified manually using the UniProt (http://www.uniprot.org/) database, considering homologous proteins and further literature information. For many proteins, assigning a definitive cellular compartment and/or function was a difficult task because of the limitations in accurate predictions and lack of experimental evidence. Also, many proteins may actually reside in multiple cellular compartments. To assign identified proteins to specific organelles, the references to subcellular localisations in the UniProt database, as well as gene ontology (GO) annotations were used.

Validation of selected membrane proteins by western blotting

Hydrophobic and hydrophilic protein samples were loaded onto Mini-Protean 3 gels. Approximately 20 μg protein per lane was separated by 7.5% SDS–PAGE gel for immunological detection of selected proteins. Proteins were transferred to PVDF membranes (Immun-Blot™ PVDF Membrane, Bio-Rad). After blocking in 5% non-fat dry milk in PBST, membranes were incubated with the anti-Na+, K+-ATPase primary antibody (diluted 1:100) in blocking solution at 4 °C overnight, with gentle rotation. Membranes were then incubated with the secondary antibody (anti-mouse labelled polymer HRP, DakoCytomation, 1:1000 dilution) in blocking solution at room temperature for 1 h. Membranes were developed by enhanced chemiluminescence reaction (Amersham) according to the instructions of the manufacturer and using auto-radiographic films (Hyperfilm, Amersham). Films were scanned on a calibrated densitometer (Bio-Rad GS800) operated by Quantity One version 4.4.1 software (Bio-Rad). Optical density of bands was determined using ImageJ version 1.47 (ImageJ, Bethesda, MD; http://imagej.nih.gov/ij); data were normalised to the value detectable in the hydrophilic fraction.

Results

Triton X-114 phase separation efficiently enriches membrane proteins from primary chondrocyte cultures

To confirm whether the Triton X-114 phase separation method was able to efficiently extract and enrich lipid-soluble membrane proteins from primary articular chondrocytes cultured in vitro, equal amounts of proteins (25 μg) from the hydrophobic and the hydrophilic fractions were loaded onto polyacrylamide gels. Following SDS–PAGE and silver staining, protein bands with clearly different patterns appeared in the gels with several strong bands present in the hydrophobic fraction only (Figure 2A). To validate the effectiveness of the Triton X-114 extraction method, western blot experiments were performed on both fractions to probe for the presence and relative abundance of a membrane-bound Na+, K+-ATPase. As seen in Figure 2B, the band for this protein in the hydrophobic pool was more than 2.6-fold stronger than that in the hydrophilic pool, demonstrating that lipid-soluble proteins were extracted and enriched in the hydrophobic fraction.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Validation of the efficacy of the Triton X-114 phase separation method. (A) Distribution of protein bands in the hydrophobic (1) and hydrophilic (2) fractions following phase partitioning in total lysates from primary equine articular chondrocyte cultures. After SDS–PAGE, protein bands were visualised using silver staining (M, molecular weight marker). Representative gel image. (B) Western blot experiment performed on both hydrophobic and hydrophilic fractions to probe for the presence and relative abundance of the membrane-bound Na+, K+-ATPase. Numbers below bands represent integrated densities determined by ImageJ freeware. Representative image. (C). The relative distribution of identified proteins following analysis by nanoLC-MS/MS based on their solubility in both hydrophobic and hydrophilic fractions. Numbers outside pie charts represent the actual numbers of proteins identified in each subgroup.

To investigate the protein content of the two fractions, trypsin-digested protein fractions were analysed by nanoLC-MS/MS using Bruker Easy-nanoLC chromatography and a Bruker amaZon ion trap instrument with shotgun proteomics methodologies. A total of 315 unique proteins were reliably (p <0.05) identified in this study; 208 proteins were detected in the hydrophobic fraction and 192 proteins in the hydrophilic fraction, with 73 (23%) proteins present in both fractions. According to the subcellular localisation data in the UniProt database entries and gene ontology (GO) annotations, in the hydrophobic pool 115 proteins (55%) were membrane proteins and only the remaining 93 proteins (45%) were non-membrane proteins. In contrast, only 38 proteins (20%) were listed as membrane proteins in the hydrophilic fraction, and the other 154 proteins (80%) were non-membrane proteins (Figure 2C). Based on the distribution of membrane versus non-membrane proteins in the two fractions, using the Triton X-114 phase separation method, we successfully extracted and enriched membrane proteins in lysates of primary articular chondrocytes.

Further analysis of the hydrophobic pool reveals various types of membrane proteins

Proteins identified in the hydrophobic fraction were further analysed according to subcellular localisation based on gene ontology (GO) annotation data in the UniProt database entries (Figure 3). Of the 115 membrane proteins in this pool, PM localisation was indicated for 64 proteins (56%), and the other 51 proteins (44%) were localised in organellar membranes. The PM proteins were further subdivided according to their main functions (Table 1). Eighteen proteins (28%) were transporters or involved in membrane/vesicle traffic; 11 and 10 proteins (17 and 16%) were adhesion molecules and proteins with enzyme functions, respectively; 15 proteins (23%) were receptors, and the remaining 10 PM proteins (16%) could not be assigned to any of the previous groups or their function was unknown.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Subcellular distribution of the identified membrane proteins in the hydrophobic fraction. PM proteins were further classified according to their main function based on GO annotations. Numbers outside pie charts represent the actual numbers of proteins identified in each subgroup.

Table 1. Functional classification of PM proteins in the hydrophobic fraction identified in equine articular chondrocytes based on GO annotations.

# Name Accession No.* Mascot score Seq. coverage (%) No. of matched peptides
  Transporters, membrane/vesicle traffic        
1 Voltage-dependent anion-selective channel protein 1 VDAC1 383 36.7 8
2 Voltage-dependent anion-selective channel protein 2 VDAC2 313 25.9 6
3 Voltage-dependent anion-selective channel protein 3 VDAC3 139 12.0 3
4 Ras-related protein Rab-5B RAB5B 134 15.8 3
5 Ras-related protein Rab-5C RAB5C 164 16.2 3
6 Ras-related protein Rab-8A RAB8A 135 17.4 3
7 Ras-related protein Rab-8B RAB8B 145 17.4 3
8 Ras-related protein Rab-9A RAB9A 61 10.4 1
9 Membrane-associated progesterone receptor component 2 PGRC2 178 17.0 4
10 Annexin A1 ANXA1 125 9.2 2
11 Dolichyl-diphosphooligosaccharide–protein glycosyltransferase 48 kDa subunit OST48 86 4.6 2
12 Solute carrier family 2, facilitated glucose transporter member 1 GTR1 118 6.3 3
13 Solute carrier family 2, facilitated glucose transporter member 3 GTR3 74 4.0 3
14 Caveolin-1 CAV1 69 11.8 1
15 Monocarboxylate transporter 1 MOT1 75 2.4 1
16 PREDICTED: Melanotransferrin (CD228 antigen) MFI2 64 4.5 2
17 PREDICTED: Equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 isoform X1 SCL29A1 67 5.5 2
18 PREDICTED: Synaptosomal-associated protein 23 SNAP23 57 11.4 1
  Adhesion molecules        
1 Integrin alpha-5 (CD49e antigen, Fibronectin receptor alpha subunit; fragment) ITA5 97 6.5 2
2 Integrin alpha-V (CD51 antigen, Vitronectin receptor alpha subunit) ITAV 84 3.2 3
3 Integrin beta-1 (CD29 antigen, Fibronectin receptor beta subunit) ITB1 753 22.4 16
4 Thrombospondin-1 TSP1 435 9.7 9
5 RA175 (Cell adhesion molecule 1) CADM1 58 5.5 1
6 CD151 antigen (Tetraspanin-24) CD151 79 5.9 2
7 CD166 antigen (ALCAM, Fragment) CD166 125 8.4 3
8 CD107 antigen (Lysosome-associated membrane glycoprotein) LAMP2 53 2.0 2
9 PREDICTED: CD9 antigen (tetraspanin-29) CD9 88 10.4 2
10 PREDICTED: integrin alpha-3 isoform 2 (CD49c antigen) ITA3 60 1.2 1
11 PREDICTED: integrin beta-3 (CD61 antigen) ITB3 57 0.8 1
  Receptors        
1 Protein S100-A6 (Calcyclin) S10A6 277 53.3 4
2 CD44 antigen (Hyaluronan receptor) CD44 260 15.3 5
3 CD63 antigen (Tetraspanin-30) CD63 55 2.5 1
4 CD81 antigen (Tetraspanin-28) CD81 54 8.5 1
5 Cofilin-1 COF1 234 39.8 5
6 Myristoylated alanine-rich C-kinase substrate MARCS 172 9.0 3
7 Cell division control protein 42 homologue CDC42 154 6.5 3
8 CD71 antigen (Transferrin receptor protein 1) TFR1 64 1.7 1
9 PREDICTED: Thy-1 membrane glycoprotein (CD90 antigen) THY1 152 21.1 3
10 Basigin (CD147 antigen) precursor BSG 100 13.7 3
11 PREDICTED: disintegrin and metalloproteinase domain-containing protein 9 isoform 1 ADAM9 83 1.7 1
12 P48 (Cytokine receptor-like factor 3) CRLF3 80 6.8 2
13 Membrane steroid binding protein gi|7689365 191 29.2 4
14 Mannose receptor, C type 2 MRC2 69 0.9 1
15 Lactadherin MFGM 66 2.7 1
  Enzymes        
1 Protein disulfide-isomerase PDIA1 320 11.8 5
2 Alpha-enolase ENOA 295 24.4 7
3 CD73 antigen (5'-nucleotidase) 5NTD 160 12.0 5
4 Ras-related protein Rap-1b RAP1B 146 19.0 3
5 Prolyl endopeptidase FAP SEPR 130 5.3 3
6 Transforming protein RhoA RHOA 146 24.9 4
7 TRAF2 and NCK-interacting protein kinase TNIK 61 0.6 1
8 Thioredoxin-related transmembrane protein 1 TMX1 67 4.3 1
9 Rho GTPase-activating protein 21 RHG21 56 0.4 1
10 PREDICTED: adipocyte plasma membrane-associated protein isoform X1 APMAP 62 3.0 1
  Miscellaneous        
1 Brain acid soluble protein 1 BASP1 223 21.1 4
2 Guanine nucleotide-binding protein G(I)/G(S)/G(O) subunit gamma-12 GBG12 98 56.9 3
3 Receptor expression-enhancing protein 5 REEP5 86 11.6 2
4 CD276 antigen CD276 55 10.8 2
5 Annexin A5 ANXA5 54 3.8 1
6 Tuberin TSC2 54 0.4 1
7 PREDICTED: Tetraspanin-6 isoform X1 TSPAN6 105 7.8 2
8 PREDICTED: Matrix-remodeling-associated protein 7 MXRA7 79 20.3 1
9 PREDICTED: Protein lifeguard 3 TMBIM1 77 4.5 1
10 PREDICTED: Proteolipid protein 2 PLP2 72 18.4 2

*UniProt IDs are shown where available. In other cases, NCBInr accession numbers are shown.

The membrane proteins with other organellar distributions were also subdivided according to their subcellular localisations (Table 2). The majority (23 proteins; 45%) were localised in the membrane of the Golgi complex or the endoplasmic reticulum; 13 proteins (25%) were localised to exosome/lysosome/endosome/other vesicular membranes; another big portion (11 proteins; 22%) were mitochondrial membrane proteins; two proteins (4%) were nuclear membrane proteins; and the remaining two proteins (4%) were ambiguous in terms of specific subcellular localisation.

Table 2. Subcellular distribution of membrane proteins in the hydrophobic pool identified in equine articular chondrocytes based on GO annotations.

# Name Accession No.* Mascot score Seq. coverage (%) No. of matched peptides
  Exosome/lysosome/endosome/vesicle membrane        
1 Ras-related protein Rab-7a RAB7A 538 60.9 10
2 Vesicle-associated membrane protein 3 VAMP3 239 38.5 3
3 Ras-related protein Rab-10 RAB10 164 22.5 4
4 14-3-3 protein theta 1433T 201 22.0 5
5 Cation-dependent mannose-6-phosphate receptor MPRD 150 13.3 3
6 Syntaxin-7 STX7 144 19.9 5
7 Ras-related protein Rab-11B RB11B 176 14.2 3
8 Ras-related protein Rab-14 RAB14 128 15.3 3
9 Vesicle-associated membrane protein 5 VAMP5 54 11.2 1
10 Lysosome membrane protein 2 SCRB2 115 2.7 1
11 Charged multivesicular body protein 6 CHMP6 51 6.5 1
12 PRA1 family protein 2 PRAF2 89 16.3 2
13 PREDICTED: glucosylceramidase isoform X2 GLCM 88 4.9 2
  Golgi/ER membrane        
1 Ras-related protein Rab-1A RAB1A 301 35.6 6
2 Ras-related protein Rab-1B RAB1B 266 25.9 5
3 Ras-related protein Rab-2A RAB2A 213 24.5 4
4 Transmembrane emp24 domain-containing protein 2 (Fragment) TMED2 83 10.7 2
5 Transmembrane emp24 domain-containing protein 5 TMED5 57 5.3 1
6 Transmembrane emp24 domain-containing protein 9 TMED9 116 14.9 3
7 Transmembrane emp24 domain-containing protein 10 TMEDA 228 22.4 5
8 Membrane-associated progesterone receptor component 1 PGRC1 149 11.8 2
9 Membrane-associated progesterone receptor component 2 PGRC2 178 17.0 4
10 Transmembrane emp24 domain-containing protein 4 TMED4 120 12.3 2
11 78 kDa glucose-regulated protein GRP78 155 5.5 3
12 Translocon-associated protein subunit delta SSRD 110 17.3 2
13 Surfeit locus protein 4 SURF4 93 8.2 2
14 Vesicular integral-membrane protein VIP36 LMAN2 58 3.4 1
15 Calnexin CALX 78 2.2 1
16 B-cell receptor-associated protein 31 BAP31 85 8.1 2
17 Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 5A-1 IF5A1 53 10.4 2
18 Vesicle-associated membrane protein-associated protein A VAPA 83 4.8 1
19 Vesicle-trafficking protein SEC22b SC22B 53 5.6 1
20 PREDICTED: PRA1 family protein 3 PRAF3 89 16.0 3
21 lanosterol 14-alpha demethylase CP51A 72 2.4 1
22 PREDICTED: golgin subfamily B member 1 GOGA1 69 0.4 1
23 PREDICTED: NADH-cytochrome b5 reductase 3-like isoform 1 gi|338721361 62 4.7 1
  Mitochondrial membrane        
1 Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 5A, mitochondrial COX5A 197 30.9 4
2 ATP synthase subunit beta, mitochondrial ATPB 235 16.7 7
3 ATP synthase subunit alpha, mitochondrial ATPA 144 6.3 3
4 ATP synthase subunit delta, mitochondrial ATPD 90 8.3 1
5 Apoptosis regulator BAX BAX 70 5.7 1
6 Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 4 isoform 1, mitochondrial (Fragment) COX41 59 10.3 1
7 Carbamoyl-phosphate synthase [ammonia], mitochondrial CPSM 65 1.2 1
8 prohibitin-2 PHB2 63 4.0 1
9 Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 5B, mitochondrial COX5B 61 3.3 2
10 cytochrome oxidase subunit 2 COX2 74 3.1 1
11 PREDICTED: mitochondrial fission 1 protein-like gi|558166747 58 10.5 1
  Nuclear membrane        
1 PREDICTED: nesprin-1 SYNE1 73 0.1 1
2 PREDICTED: transmembrane protein 109 isoform X1 TMEM109 60 4.9 1
  Miscellaneous        
1 Peptidyl-prolyl cis–trans isomerase A PPIA 241 43.3 5
2 PREDICTED: cell cycle progression protein 1 isoform X1 CCPG1 65 1.6 2

*UniProt IDs are shown where available. In other cases, NCBInr accession numbers are shown.

The majority of the non-membrane proteins in the hydrophobic pool were cytoplasmic/cytoskeletal proteins (46 proteins; 50%) and secreted (extracellular) proteins (19 entries; 20%). Other subcellular localisations included the lysosome/endosome (4 proteins; 4%), the mitochondrion (1 protein; 1%), the Golgi complex or the endoplasmic reticulum lumen (8 proteins; 9%), the nucleus (10 proteins; 11%), and the remaining five proteins were either contaminants or their subcellular localisation was ambiguous (5%; Figure 4 and Table 3).

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Subcellular localisation of the identified non-membrane proteins in the hydrophobic fraction based on GO annotations. Numbers outside pie chart represent the actual numbers of proteins identified in each subgroup.

Table 3. Subcellular distribution of non-membrane proteins in the hydrophobic pool identified in equine articular chondrocytes based on GO annotations.

# Name Accession No.* Mascot score Seq. coverage (%) No. of matched peptides
  Secreted (extracellular)/exosome        
1 Alpha-2-macroglobulin A2MG 914 15.8 19
2 Transgelin-2 TAGL2 426 47.7 9
3 Apolipoprotein D APOD 188 24.3 6
4 Alpha-1-antiproteinase (Serpin A1, antitrypsin) A1AT 220 9.4 5
5 Guanine nucleotide-binding protein G(I)/G(S)/G(T) subunit beta-1 GBB1 90 6.2 2
6 Annexin A2 ANXA2 83 7.7 2
7 Guanine nucleotide-binding protein subunit beta-4 GBB4 119 9.7 3
8 Galectin-1 LEG1 119 16.3 2
9 Pancreatic trypsin inhibitor BPT1 52 13.0 1
10 Transthyretin TTHY 95 19.0 2
11 SPARC SPRC 190 25.3 5
12 Alpha-S1-casein CASA1 72 10.3 2
13 Triosephosphate isomerase TPIS 214 21.3 4
14 Hemopexin HEMO 55 3.5 2
15 Apolipoprotein E APOE 54 6.5 2
16 Hypothetical protein PANDA_010395 (lipocalin) gi|281339160 152 5.9 1
17 PREDICTED: cell growth regulator with EF hand domain protein 1 isoformX1 gi|149727690 111 14.1 3
18 Complement component C4 CO4 63 11.6 1
19 PREDICTED: ovostatin-like gi|344278152 57 1.1 1
  Cytoplasm/cytoskeleton        
1 Actin, cytoplasmic 1 ACTB 610 41.1 14
2 Tropomyosin alpha-4 chain TPM4 538 32.7 10
3 Myosin light polypeptide 6 MYL6 337 52.3 8
4 60S acidic ribosomal protein P2 RLA2 334 60.0 5
5 Tropomyosin alpha-1 chain TPM1 339 21.5 7
6 Tropomyosin beta chain TPM2 319 18.0 6
7 Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase G3P 271 15.9 4
8 Tropomyosin alpha-3 chain TPM3 298 21.4 6
9 Tubulin alpha-1B chain TBA1B 381 19.1 7
10 Transgelin TAGL 136 16.4 3
11 L-lactate dehydrogenase A chain LDHA 217 13.3 4
12 Pyruvate kinase PKM KPYM 186 12.6 5
13 Tubulin alpha-1A chain TBA1A 168 12.2 4
14 Heat shock protein beta-1 (hsp25, hsp27) HSPB1 209 22.5 5
15 Peroxiredoxin-1 PRDX1 217 27.1 6
16 14-3-3 protein zeta/delta 1433Z 74 19.2 3
17 Tubulin beta-5 chain TBB5 122 9.9 3
18 Profilin-1 PROF1 112 24.3 4
19 Fructose-bisphosphate aldolase A ALDOA 178 13.7 3
20 Hsc70-interacting protein F10A1 63 6.8 2
21 14-3-3 protein epsilon 1433E 57 11.4 2
22 Phosphoglycerate kinase 1 PGK1 83 6.7 2
23 Myosin-9 MYH9 100 0.6 1
24 Far upstream element-binding protein 2 FUBP2 103 4.6 3
25 Caldesmon CALD1 82 3.9 2
26 14-3-3 protein beta/alpha 1433B 81 11.8 2
27 Guanine nucleotide-binding protein G(i) subunit alpha-2 GNAI2 77 7.9 2
28 60S acidic ribosomal protein P1 RLA1 64 14.0 1
29 40S ribosomal protein S12 RS12 63 19.7 2
30 Nuclease-sensitive element-binding protein 1 YBOX1 61 4.6 1
31 Calmodulin CALM 59 22.1 2
32 Elongation factor 1-alpha 1 EF1A1 56 5.0 2
33 Heat shock cognate 71 kDa protein HSP7C 134 6.3 3
34 Metallothionein-1A MT1A 52 19.7 1
35 Protein S100-A1 S10A1 50 16.0 1
36 PREDICTED: protein S100-A11 gi|149751468 160 27.0 3
37 A-kinase anchor protein 9 AKAP9 82 0.3 1
38 PREDICTED: plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 RNA-binding protein isoform 1 gi|345800374 81 4.1 1
39 PREDICTED: peroxiredoxin-6 gi|149707887 80 17.9 3
40 hsp70A1 gi|193983 79 2.7 2
41 40S ribosomal protein S28 RPS28 79 30.4 2
42 PREDICTED: phosphatidylethanolamine-binding protein 1 gi|149720563 74 18.7 3
43 G-protein beta subunit gi|51116 72 17.1 2
44 phosphoglycerate mutase gi|189868 59 9.5 2
45 Stathmin STMN1 59 15.1 2
46 Tropomyosin 3, gamma isoform 19-like protein gi|528766928 268 18.6 7
  Lysosome/melanosome/endosome        
1 Cathepsin D CATD 218 15.6 7
2 Prosaposin SAP 184 6.5 4
3 Cathepsin K CATK 56 5.2 2
4 CLN2 protein (tripeptidyl peptidase 1) TPP1 64 1.8 1
  Mitochondrion        
1 PREDICTED: Diablo homologue, mitochondrial-like gi|345323079 69 4.1 1
  Golgi/ER lumen        
1 Reticulocalbin-3 RCN3 252 12.2 3
2 Glucosidase 2 subunit beta GLU2B 129 4.3 2
3 Endoplasmin (hsp90beta1) ENPL 123 2.5 2
4 Glucosidase 2 subunit beta GLU2B 100 5.8 2
5 Calumenin CALU 73 10.2 2
6 Serpin H1 SERPH 73 3.6 1
7 Calreticulin CALR 65 3.1 1
8 Endoplasmic reticulum resident protein 29 ERP29 51 8.4 2
  Nucleus        
1 Far upstream element-binding protein 1 FUBP1 237 14.4 7
2 Prothymosin alpha PTMA 198 21.8 4
3 Neuroblast differentiation-associated protein AHNAK AHNK 166 0.8 4
4 Thioredoxin THIO 130 2.1 2
5 Coiled-coil domain-containing protein 57 CCD57 67 0.8 1
6 Small ubiquitin-related modifier 2 SUMO2 54 12.6 1
7 PREDICTED: zinc finger protein 764-like gi|558191623 66 2.7 1
8 PREDICTED: Fanconi anaemia group C protein gi|348565316 56 1.6 1
9 PREDICTED: poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase 6 isoformX1 gi|545216657 206 4.9 2
10 Bromodomain adjacent to zinc finger domain protein 2A BAZ2A 198 2.7 5
  Contaminants        
1 Keratin, type II cytoskeletal 1 K2C1 592 21.4 12
2 Serum albumin ALBU 195 7.7 4
3 Trypsin TRYP 75 7.8 2
  Miscellaneous        
1 PREDICTED: leptin receptor gene-related protein-like isoform X1 gi|545218045 79 11.5 1
2 Chain C, Ternary Complex Of A Calcineurin A Fragment, Calcineurin B, Fkbp12 And The Immunosuppressant Drug Fk506 (tacrolimus) gi|1942335 65 12.1 1

*UniProt IDs are shown where available. In other cases, NCBInr accession numbers are shown.

The hydrophilic pool contains proteins with different solubility and subcellular distribution

The Triton X-114 phase separation technique effectively extracted and enriched lipid-soluble membrane proteins in the hydrophobic phase, and left comparably few membrane proteins (only 20%) in the hydrophilic fraction (Figure 2C). As in the case of the hydrophobic fraction, the majority of the 38 lipid-soluble membrane proteins were localised in the PM (25 proteins; 66%), whilst the others were localised in various organellar membranes (Golgi complex/endoplasmic reticulum membrane, 16%; mitochondrial membrane, 8%; nuclear membrane, 2%; Figure 5 and Table 4).

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Subcellular localisation of the identified membrane and non-membrane proteins in the hydrophilic fraction based on GO annotations. Numbers outside pie charts represent the actual numbers of proteins identified in each subgroup.

Table 4. Functional classification of PM proteins and other membrane proteins in the hydrophilic pool identified in equine articular chondrocytes based on GO annotations.

# Name Accession No.* Mascot score Seq. coverage (%) No. of matched peptides Function of PM protein
  Plasma membrane/surface proteins          
1 Thrombospondin-1 TSP1 811 14.3 14 Adhesion
2 Protein disulfide-isomerase PDIA1 614 28.1 13 Enzyme
3 Alpha-enolase ENOA 557 32.5 11 Enzyme
4 Annexin A1 ANXA1 468 39.9 10 Transporter
5 Cofilin-1 COF1 306 38.6 5 Receptor
6 Moesin MOES 303 15.1 8 Adhesion
7 Annexin A5 ANXA5 258 19.1 6 Other (receptor)
8 Integrin beta-1 (CD29 antigen, Fibronectin receptor beta subunit) ITB1 160 6.3 4 Adhesion
9 Protein disulfide-isomerase A6 PDIA6 147 14.1 4 Enzyme
10 Protein disulfide-isomerase A4 PDIA4 109 1.9 1 Enzyme
11 Prolow-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1 LRP1 76 0.5 2 Receptor
12 Annexin A4 ANXA4 58 5.6 2 Other (receptor)
13 40S ribosomal protein SA (Laminin receptor) RSSA 57 4.4 1 Receptor
14 Procollagen-lysine,2-oxoglutarate 5-dioxygenase 2 PLOD2 53 1.9 1 Enzyme
15 Myristoylated alanine-rich C-kinase substrate MARCS 52 4.5 1 Other
16 Cytoskeleton-associated protein 4 CKAP4 99 5.0 3 Receptor
17 Guanine nucleotide-binding protein subunit beta-2-like 1 GBLP 66 7.3 2 Other
18 Brain acid soluble protein 1 BASP1 52 5.7 1 Other
19 Talin-1 TLN1 418 3.1 8 Other (receptor)
20 PREDICTED: annexin A8 isoform X1 gi|149690688 127 12.8 3 Other
21 PREDICTED: alpha-2-macroglobulin receptor-associated protein gi|545213509 116 7.3 2 Other
22 PREDICTED: chloride intracellular channel protein 1 gi|149732344 68 12.4 2 Transporter
23 PREDICTED: ADP/ATP translocase 2-like gi|558210559 64 2.7 1 Transporter
24 PREDICTED: utrophin gi|507925858 57 0.4 1 Other
25 Vacuolar protein sorting-associated protein 35 VPS35 65 1.6 1 Transporter
  Exosome/lysosome/endosome/vesicle membrane          
  Golgi/ER membrane          
1 78 kDa glucose-regulated protein GRP78 734 30.0 15  
2 Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase A PPIA 268 43.3 7  
3 Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase B PPIB 174 21.3 4  
4 14-3-3 protein theta 1433T 122 13.9 3  
5 Calnexin CALX 49 2.2 1  
6 PREDICTED: golgin subfamily B member 1 isoform 1 gi|466052157 62 0.3 1  
  Mitochondrial membrane          
1 ATP synthase subunit beta, mitochondrial ATPB 120 4.5 2  
2 ATP synthase subunit alpha, mitochondrial ATPA 89 6.1 2  
3 ATP synthase subunit delta, mitochondrial ATPD 74 8.3 1  
  Nuclear membrane          
1 Nesprin-1 SYNE1 57 0.1 1  
  Miscellaneous          
1 DNA primase small subunit gi|431914029 203 2.8 3  
2 PREDICTED: calpastatin isoform X5 gi|545185308 69 3.4 2  
3 CD209 antigen-like protein C C209C 54 3.4 1  

*UniProt IDs are shown where available. In other cases, NCBInr accession numbers are shown.

Taken together, we have identified 78 unique PM proteins in equine articular chondrocytes in this work. Among them, 32 proteins possessed receptor/adhesion functions; the most important ones are the cluster of differentiation (CD) proteins and integrins. Furthermore, 21 PM proteins with transporter functions were detected in articular chondrocytes (Tables 1 and 4).

The non-membrane protein complement in the hydrophilic fraction comprised 154 proteins, the majority of which (77 proteins; 50%) were cytoplasmic/cytoskeletal proteins. Also in good correlation with the non-membrane protein distribution observed in the hydrophobic samples, the secreted (extracellular) and the nuclear proteins were the second and third largest groups in this fraction (23 proteins, 15%; and 22 proteins, 14%, respectively). Other subcellular localisations included the lysosome/endosome (5 proteins; 3%), the mitochondrion (6 proteins; 4%), the Golgi complex or the endoplasmic reticulum lumen (13 proteins; 9%), and the remaining eight proteins were either contaminants or their subcellular localisation was not determined (5%; Figure 5 and Table 5).

Table 5. Functional classification of non-membrane proteins in the hydrophilic pool identified in equine articular chondrocytes based on GO annotations.

# Name Accession No.* Mascot score Seq. coverage (%) No. of matched peptides
  Secreted (extracellular), exosome        
1 Alpha-2-macroglobulin A2MG 2098 37.0 45
2 Transgelin-2 TAGL2 475 44.2 7
3 Annexin A2 ANXA2 397 27.7 8
4 Triosephosphate isomerase TPIS 337 30.5 6
5 Hemopexin HEMO 270 17.9 7
6 Serotransferrin TRFE 268 13.1 7
7 Alpha-1-antiproteinase A1AT 254 10.3 5
8 Collagen alpha-1(I) chain CO1A1 141 1.8 2
9 Myosin regulatory light chain RLC-A MRLCA 127 22.7 3
10 Galectin-1 LEG1 109 22.2 3
11 Transthyretin TTHY 91 19.0 2
12 Macrophage migration inhibitory factor MIF 86 17.4 2
13 Complement C4 (Fragments) CO4 63 3.6 2
14 Alpha-1-inhibitor 3 A1I3 59 0.8 1
15 Pancreatic trypsin inhibitor BPT1 51 13.0 1
16 Connective tissue growth factor CTGF 98 2.9 1
17 SH3 domain-binding glutamic acid-rich-like protein SH3L1 62 7.9 1
18 Collagen alpha-5(VI) chain CO6A5 58 0.2 1
19 Thrombospondin-2 TSP2 50 1.0 1
20 PREDICTED: heat shock protein HSP 90-alpha-like, partial gi|507695623 99 3.8 2
21 PREDICTED: glia-derived nexin (Serpin E2) gi|344268474 60 3.0 1
22 AM2 receptor gi|49942 60 0.4 2
23 Semaphorin-3G precursor gi|9910362 57 1.3 1
  Cytoplasm/cytoskeleton        
1 Tropomyosin alpha-4 chain TPM4 902 47.6 15
2 Tropomyosin beta chain TPM2 722 31.7 12
3 Tropomyosin alpha-3 chain TPM3 639 34.7 10
4 Actin, cytoplasmic 1 ACTB 616 43.5 13
5 Tropomyosin alpha-1 chain TPM1 584 32.4 11
6 Phosphoglycerate kinase 1 PGK1 555 42.7 13
7 L-lactate dehydrogenase A chain LDHA 492 22.6 6
8 Heat shock cognate 71 kDa protein HSP7C 486 17.7 10
9 Pyruvate kinase PKM KPYM 463 23.7 10
10 14-3-3 protein epsilon 1433E 433 37.6 9
11 Fructose-bisphosphate aldolase A ALDOA 423 27.7 9
12 Filamin-A OS = Homo sapiens FLNA 406 4.3 8
13 Tubulin alpha-1B chain TBA1B 358 20.2 7
14 Transgelin TAGL 357 41.3 8
15 Myosin-9 MYH9 351 7.2 9
16 Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase G3P 335 22.8 6
17 14-3-3 protein zeta/delta 1433Z 319 24.1 5
18 Tubulin beta-5 chain TBB5 310 20.7 7
19 Phosphoglycerate mutase 1 PGAM1 271 27.2 5
20 Myosin light polypeptide 6 MYL6 249 52.3 7
21 Protein SET SET 225 18.3 4
22 Elongation factor 1-alpha 1 EF1A1 222 11.3 6
23 Nuclease-sensitive element-binding protein 1 YBOX1 211 14.8 3
24 Glutathione S-transferase P GSTP1 202 20.0 3
25 Phosphatidylethanolamine-binding protein 1 PEBP1 196 26.2 3
26 Peroxiredoxin-1 PRDX1 195 28.1 5
27 Profilin-1 PROF1 195 40.7 6
28 Alpha-actinin-4 ACTN4 193 6.0 5
29 L-lactate dehydrogenase B chain LDHB 188 9.9 3
30 Caldesmon CALD1 182 5.7 5
31 14-3-3 protein beta/alpha 1433B 174 18.3 4
32 Stathmin STMN1 159 37.6 5
33 LIM and SH3 domain protein 1 LASP1 153 13.7 3
34 Elongation factor 2 EF2 147 4.7 4
35 L-lactate dehydrogenase C chain LDHC 144 7.2 3
36 Heat shock 70 kDa protein 1A HS71A 138 5.3 3
37 Heat shock protein HSP 90-beta HS90B 128 4.7 3
38 14-3-3 protein gamma 1433G 112 6.1 2
39 Ferritin light chain FRIL 109 16.0 2
40 Vinculin VINC 107 2.5 2
41 Heat shock protein HSP 90-alpha HS90A 100 4.9 3
42 Calmodulin CALM 97 33.6 4
43 Centromere protein F CENPF 96 0.2 1
44 Nascent polypeptide-associated complex subunit alpha, muscle-specific form NACAM 95 0.7 1
45 Ubiquitin UBIQ 92 32.9 2
46 Peroxiredoxin-4 PRDX4 91 11.8 3
47 Peroxiredoxin-6 PRDX6 89 10.3 2
48 Titin TITIN 81 0.0 2
49 Plastin-3 PLST 77 4.9 2
50 Nucleoside diphosphate kinase B NDKB 69 17.1 2
51 40S ribosomal protein S28 RS28 69 17.4 1
52 Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4B IF4B 63 2.8 1
53 Hepatoma-derived growth factor HDGF 61 4.2 1
54 Rho GDP-dissociation inhibitor 1 GDIR1 60 15.2 2
55 Fuctinin-3 (Fragment) FUC3 59 84.6 2
56 Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase FKBP1A FKB1A 59 12.0 1
57 Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4H IF4H 55 5.2 1
58 Metallothionein-1A MT1A 55 19.7 1
59 Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein Q HNRPQ 53 5.6 2
60 Rab GDP dissociation inhibitor alpha GDIA 53 8.5 2
61 60S ribosomal protein L22 RL22 52 8.6 1
62 40S ribosomal protein S21 RS21 103 12.0 1
63 Myosin-10 MYH10 95 2.3 3
64 40S ribosomal protein S19 RS19 81 6.9 1
65 Ran-specific GTPase-activating protein RANG 65 5.3 1
66 Peroxiredoxin-2 PRDX2 57 8.1 2
67 Plastin-2 PLSL 56 1.4 1
68 Prostaglandin E synthase 3 TEBP 50 8.1 1
69 Transitional endoplasmic reticulum ATPase TERA 50 1.6 1
70 Tropomyosin 3, gamma isoform 19-like protein gi|528766928 639 27.2 12
71 Striated-muscle alpha tropomyosin gi|207349 590 34.2 12
72 PREDICTED: protein S100-A11 gi|149751468 148 27.0 3
73 PREDICTED: hsc70-interacting protein isoform X1 gi|149743058 113 7.3 2
74 PREDICTED: ubiquitin-60S ribosomal protein L40 isoform X1 gi|532055807 82 19.5 2
75 PREDICTED: 60S ribosomal protein L19-like gi|532037025 63 4.7 1
76 Ribosomal protein S3, isoform CRA_f gi|148684444 57 5.4 1
77 PREDICTED: dynein heavy chain 9, axonemal gi|403275402 62 0.1 1
  Lysosome/melanosome/endosome        
1 Myosin-11 MYH11 166 2.9 4
2 Cathepsin K CATK 105 11.5 3
3 Cathepsin D CATD 91 6.8 2
4 Prosaposin SAP 81 4.6 2
5 PREDICTED: cathepsin B isoform X1 gi|149698064 96 9.4 2
  Mitochondrion        
1 60 kDa heat shock protein, mitochondrial CH60 167 14.0 5
2 Malate dehydrogenase, mitochondrial MDHM 145 14.8 4
3 10 kDa heat shock protein, mitochondrial CH10 87 29.4 3
4 Arginase-2, mitochondrial ARGI2 67 3.4 1
5 Stress-70 protein, mitochondrial (Fragments) GRP75 53 2.4 1
6 Aspartate aminotransferase, mitochondrial AATM 67 2.8 1
  Golgi/ER lumen        
1 Protein disulfide-isomerase A3 PDIA3 573 27.5 14
2 Calumenin CALU 374 40.0 9
3 Serpin H1 SERPH 367 27.3 9
4 Endoplasmin ENPL 344 11.1 7
5 Calreticulin CALR 257 24.7 8
6 Reticulocalbin-3 RCN3 154 12.5 3
7 Glucosidase 2 subunit beta GLU2B 114 7.9 3
8 Endoplasmic reticulum resident protein 29 ERP29 92 11.1 3
9 Prolyl 4-hydroxylase subunit alpha-1 P4HA1 78 2.6 1
10 Proteasome-associated protein ECM29 homologue ECM29 58 0.3 1
11 Thioredoxin domain-containing protein 5 TXND5 56 2.3 1
12 PREDICTED: reticulocalbin-1-like gi|334331754 72 8.2 2
13 PREDICTED: hypoxia up-regulated protein 1 gi|514466500 62 2.1 1
  Nucleus        
1 Neuroblast differentiation-associated protein AHNAK AHNK 404 1.3 7
2 Nucleolin NUCL 248 6.7 4
3 Prothymosin alpha PTMA 198 22.7 4
4 Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoproteins A2/B1 ROA2 163 12.6 4
5 Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein A/B ROAA 163 13.0 3
6 Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein D0 HNRPD 157 12.4 4
7 Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein A1 ROA1 139 12.8 3
8 Thioredoxin THIO 135 21.0 2
9 Plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 RNA-binding protein PAIRB 132 6.6 2
10 High mobility group protein B1 HMGB1 129 17.7 3
11 Parathymosin PTMS 120 22.5 3
12 Acidic leucine-rich nuclear phosphoprotein 32 family member A AN32A 115 11.6 2
13 Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase FKBP3 FKBP3 82 9.8 2
14 Synaptonemal complex protein 1 SYCP1 82 1.0 1
15 RNA-binding protein 3 RBM3 76 17.8 2
16 Lupus La protein homologue LA 69 2.7 1
17 Nucleophosmin NPM 65 4.8 1
18 Thyroid hormone receptor-associated protein 3 TR150 57 1.8 1
19 DDB1- and CUL4-associated factor 13 DCA13 57 1.8 1
20 DNA-binding protein gi|181914 157 13.4 4
21 Ran/TC4 Binding Protein gi|431422 65 5.4 1
22 PREDICTED: DDB1- and CUL4-associated factor 13 gi|348588727 59 1.8 1
  Contaminants        
1 Keratin, type II cytoskeletal 1 K2C1 380 13.8 8
2 Serum albumin ALBU 168 5.8 3
3 Trypsin TRYP 51 3.5 1
  Miscellaneous        
1 Coiled-coil domain-containing protein 18 CCD18 55 1.8 2
2 Outer dense fiberfibre protein 2-like ODF2L 76 1.6 1
3 Chain C, Ternary Complex Of A Calcineurin A Fragment, Calcineurin B, Fkbp12 And The Immunosuppressant Drug Fk506 (tacrolimus) gi|1942335 59 12.1 1
4 PREDICTED: 28 kDa heat- and acid-stable phosphoprotein gi|149755423 59 11.0 1
5 PREDICTED: LOW QUALITY PROTEIN: 60S ribosomal protein L29-like gi|513000456 60 5.2 1

*UniProt IDs are shown where available. In other cases, NCBInr accession numbers are shown.

Discussion

The application of mass spectrometry (MS) has recently become an important tool in cartilage biology as it offers numerous advantages over more conventional biochemical approaches such as western blotting. To date, a number of proteomic studies have been performed on cartilage tissue and on chondrocytes, confirming that this analytical tool is particularly suitable for high-throughput and large-scale analysis of the protein complement in health and disease [reviewed in Hsueh et al. (2014) and Williams et al. (2011)]. The first proteomic study carried out on normal human knee articular chondrocyte cultures aimed at creating a two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2-DE) reference map and generated 93 unique protein identities (Ruiz-Romero et al., 2005). A 1-D SDS–PAGE approach combined with MS/MS resulted in the identification of over 100 different proteins from human knee cartilage supernatants (Garcia et al., 2006). In the first large-scale MS analysis of human articular cartilage, which was designed to extract both extracellular and intracellular proteins from samples depleted of highly abundant ECM proteins such as collagens and aggrecan to allow the detection of less abundant proteins, a total number of 814 distinct proteins were identified (Wu et al., 2007). In a more recent study, the proteome of articular chondrocytes from healthy and OA patients using high resolution label-free MS was analysed, leading to the identification of ∼2400 proteins (Tsolis et al., 2015).

Despite these studies and the impressive number of proteins identified, our knowledge about the proteome of cartilage and its resident cell, the chondrocyte, can still be improved. One significant drawback is that at least in some of the studies the identified proteins have not been properly analysed in terms of subcellular locations and/or functions. In addition, the majority of proteins identified in these studies were located in the ECM because of their high abundance relative to cellular proteins in chondrocytes. More specifically, the “hidden” proteome, which comprises low abundance proteins and/or is not accessible by standard methods, is still poorly characterised. In a study that combined extensive pre-fractionation followed by electrospray ionisation mass spectrometry (ESI-MS/MS), 779 unique proteins expressed by cultured chondrocytes were identified, of which 203 were annotated to the membrane (Lambrecht et al., 2010). However, the authors did not carry out a detailed analysis with respect to specific subcellular location and/or function of the identified membrane proteins, making further data interpretation attempts challenging.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to extend the current knowledge of the chondrocyte proteome by using the Triton X-114 phase separation technique to discover the membrane subproteome (the membranome). We have chosen to use equine articular chondrocytes in this study, for the horse is widely involved in occupational/sports activities and considered as an excellent animal model for human joint diseases (Aigner et al., 2010) and yet, current knowledge is limited and relates to only the protein complement of equine chondrocytes. The unique features of our study are as follows. First, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of LC-MS/MS proteomics to study the membrane protein complement of cultured articular chondrocytes. Second, a large proportion (133 proteins; 42%) of the 315 proteins identified in this work consisted of membrane proteins, and for some of these only ambiguous data were available in chondrocytes [e.g. CD276, S100-A6 (calcyclin), VDACs]. The proportion of membrane proteins was even higher in the hydrophobic phase (55%). As far as the proportion of membrane proteins is concerned, our results are in a good agreement with those reported elsewhere (Hansson et al., 2010). The aim of that study was to characterise the human pancreatic islet membrane proteome by evaluating five different extraction procedures; while the proportion of membrane proteins in the total extracts was 35%, a considerably higher proportion (61%) of membrane proteins was identified following the use of membrane protein-enriching methods. It is also worth noting that the choice of method for extraction of membrane proteins had a strong influence on the number and identity of proteins detected in that analysis, and the hydrophobic phase of Triton X-114 phase separation was found to be the most efficient extraction method (Hansson et al., 2010). These results also underpin that appropriate sample preparation and pre-fractionation methods can increase the amount of identified proteins with specific properties in the MS/MS analysis of proteins in complex biological samples. It was for that reason that we used the Triton X-114 phase separation method in this study.

Although a detailed description of the proteins identified in the chondrocyte membranome is beyond the scope of this article, a few important protein classes merit comment due to their potential involvement in chondrocyte homeostasis. We therefore restrict discussing our results to certain protein groups localised in the PM.

CD antigens and integrins

Cluster of differentiation (CD) proteins are four hydrophobic domain-containing cell surface membrane glycoproteins that mediate a range of cellular processes including development, differentiation, activation, growth and motility. Composed of alpha and beta subunits, integrins are integral PM receptors that mediate attachment between a cell and its surroundings. They transduce information from the ECM to the cell and integrin-mediated signalling pathways influence cell shape, mobility, differentiation and the cell cycle. The integrins identified in this study (integrin beta-1 [CD29], integrin alpha-5 [CD49e], integrin alpha-V [CD51], integrin alpha-3 [CD49c] and integrin beta-3 [CD61]) are in a complete agreement with what has been published earlier (Mobasheri et al., 2002a; Shakibaei et al., 2008; Woods et al., 1994). Our data also confirm reports on CD antigen expression in articular chondrocytes (Diaz-Romero et al., 2005). We found that equine articular chondrocytes express tetraspanins (CD9 [tetraspanin-19], CD63 [tetraspanin-30], CD81 [tetraspanin-28] and CD151 [tetraspanin-24]); CD44 (hyaluronan receptor); CD71 (transferrin receptor); CD90 (Thy-1); and CD166 (ALCAM). CD73, an ecto-5′-nucleotidase, which plays a crucial role in extracellular adenosine generation, has been reported to be involved in mechanotransduction pathways following cyclic compressive stimulation (Ode et al., 2013). CD107 (LAMP) expression has been recently reported in murine growth plate cartilage and cartilaginous nodules in embryonic limb bud-derived micromass cultures (Hatakeyama et al., 2014). CD147 (basigin; also known as extracellular matrix metalloproteinase inducer) is known to be extensively expressed by chondrocytes both in normal and OA cartilage (Orazizadeh & Salter, 2008). CD228 (melanotransferrin) has also long been known to facilitate the differentiation of prechondrogenic cells (Suardita et al., 2002). While CD276 has not been identified earlier in chondrocytes, it is known to be expressed in undifferentiated mesenchymal stem cells derived from Wharton’s jelly (WJ-MSCs), even after osteogenic, adipogenic and chondrogenic differentiation (La Rocca et al., 2013).

S100 proteins

Of particular interest is protein S100-A6 (calcyclin) expression in equine articular chondrocytes. The S100 family of proteins consists of 24 members, which show cell-specific expression patterns and are involved in a wide range of cellular processes including proliferation, differentiation, apoptosis, Ca2+ homeostasis, energy metabolism, inflammation and migration/invasion through interactions with a variety of target proteins ranging from enzymes, cytoskeletal subunits, receptors, transcription factors and nucleic acids [reviewed in Donato et al. (2013)]. In particular, S100-A6 may function as a Ca2+ sensor and modulator, contributing to Ca2+ signalling pathways. It is also implicated in cell proliferation and cytoskeletal dynamics, and known to have a potential role in cell responses to different stressors. Calcyclin was reported to be significantly upregulated in serially passaged adipose tissue-derived MSCs (Capra et al., 2012), which may correspond to previous data suggesting that it is frequently upregulated during proliferation and differentiation and it is induced by different growth factors. There are only sporadic data available relating to S100-A6 expression in chondrocytes. Its mRNA transcript has been shown to be downregulated following chondrogenic induction by BMP4 in ATDC5 cells, and it has also been identified in one of the chondrocyte proteome studies discussed earlier (Lambrecht et al., 2010).

Other S100 proteins identified in this study include S100-A1 and S100-A11 (Tables 3 and 5). S100-A1 is localised in the cytoplasm where it is associated with cytoskeletal components and mitochondria. It can influence Ca2+  handling in cultured ventricular cardiomyocytes through interaction with the sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-ATPase and RyR2; it also modulates CaV1 channel currents in a PKA-dependent manner. S100-A1 also regulates energy metabolism by stimulating fructose-1,6-biphosphate aldolase and inhibiting phosphoglucomutase and glycogen phosphorylase (Donato et al., 2013). Also localised in the cytoplasm, S100-A11 is reported to modulate cell growth via binding either to nucleolin or Rad54B (Donato et al., 2013). In particular, S100-A11 can activate the p38 MAPK pathway to accelerate chondrocyte hypertrophy and ECM catabolism that may promote OA progression (Cecil & Terkeltaub, 2008). Both S100-A1 and S100-A11 have been reported to be expressed and functional in chondrocytes (Donato et al., 2013; Patti et al., 1999), and both proteins were identified in a previous MS study (Lambrecht et al., 2010).

Transporters

Ion channels and transporters are essential components of chondrocytes that control the movement of ions and other small molecules across the PM. An increasing number of studies have reported the presence of an ever-expanding list of ion channels and transporters in chondrocytes [reviewed in Barrett-Jolley et al. (2010) and Matta et al. (2015)]. Based on GO annotations, 21 proteins with transporter functions were identified in the PM in this study (Tables 1 and 4). Originally described as being localised in the outer mitochondrial membrane (Benz, 1994), voltage-dependent anion-selective channels (VDACs), also known as mitochondrial porins, form the pores that allow the transport of small hydrophilic solutes across the membrane. However, accumulating evidence support that VDACs can also be expressed in the PM (De Pinto et al., 2010), where they exhibit voltage-gated anion channel activity, and its electrophysiological phenotype is that of a maxi-chloride channel (Lewis et al., 2013). Although VDACs have not been unequivocally reported to be expressed and function in chondrocytes, the anion channel identified in some previous studies was the maxi-chloride channel, which is remarkably similar to the maxi-Cl/VDAC channel (Sugimoto et al., 1996; Tsuga et al., 2002). Although all three VDAC proteins were identified in chondrocytes in our experiments and also by others (Lambrecht et al., 2010), further studies will need to functionally investigate the physiological and pathophysiological roles of these transporters in the chondrocyte PM.

The chloride intracellular channel (CLIC) proteins possess pH-dependent chloride ion channel activity. CLIC1 and CLIC4, in addition to other members of the CLIC family, are often referred to as “p64-related” proteins, and while they may localise to intracellular compartments (e.g. the nucleus), they also appear to be in the PM and could serve a role in secretion (Lewis et al., 2013). Once again, although the CLIC1 protein was identified in chondrocytes in this study and by others (Lambrecht et al., 2010), its presence and function has not been unambiguously demonstrated earlier.

In addition to anion channels, glucose transporter (GLUT) proteins (facilitative glucose transporter 1 and 3; GLUT 1 and GLUT3) were also identified in our study. Glucose is a key metabolite and a structural precursor for articular cartilage and its transport has significant consequences for cartilage development and functional integrity. Our results are in a good agreement with previously published data (Mobasheri et al., 2002b), confirming here by proteomic techniques the expression of these two GLUT isoforms in articular chondrocytes.

Conclusion

In summary, studying the membranome profile of equine articular chondrocytes by LC-MS/MS following enrichment using Triton X-114 pre-fractionation has turned out to be an excellent approach to gain insight into proteins involved in a wide range of membrane-bound processes such as signal transduction, adhesion and transport of ions and other molecules. In spite of the significant enrichment of lipid-soluble membrane proteins in the hydrophobic phase, the proteins that are present in an extremely low abundance in chondrocytes such as the majority of ion channels and other transporter molecules in the PM remained undetectable. Although detergent-based phase partitioning enriches PM proteins relative to total soluble proteins, the membrane proteins in the ER, mitochondria and other organelles are also enriched; and the abundance of proteins in the contaminating organelles can interfere with the ability to detect PM proteins (Zhang & Peck, 2011). To mitigate these limitations, a combination of the Triton X-114 phase separation method with other membrane protein enrichment techniques could also be considered.

Our study confirms some previous findings and adds further proteins to the proteomic profile of equine articular chondrocytes. Some of the identified proteins including the CD276 antigen, S100-A6 (calcyclin) or VDACs have not been unambiguously reported before to be components of articular chondrocytes. However, there are certain limitations to this work. First and foremost, protein identifications were somewhat aggravated by the fact that our search results listed the same proteins several times but for different species (primarily human or bovine but no horse entries), suggesting that the protein was present in the sample and that the identification was made by virtue of the horse protein sharing homology with several other species. This is one of the disadvantages when “cross species matching” is used to identify proteins. Another possible disadvantage of using equine articular chondrocytes is that there may be subtle differences between the two species and that the entirety of our results may not be directly applicable to human articular chondrocytes.

A more detailed and comprehensive insight into the chondrocyte membranome is likely to make a significant contribution to the development of novel drugs for arthritic diseases. The development and refinement of proteomics-based techniques will enable a better understanding of regulatory proteins and enhance the search for new drug targets. It may also help to discover novel cartilage disease-specific biomarkers. Thus, our data represent a significant addition to the comprehensive cartilage proteome database that is essential for understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying cartilage function and OA.

Declaration of interest

The authors do not have any commercial relationships that could be construed as biased or inappropriate. The authors report no declarations of interests. C. M. is supported by the European Commission through a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Intra-European Fellowship for career development (project number: 625746; acronym: CHONDRION; FP7-PEOPLE-2013-IEF). A. M. is the co-ordinator of the D-BOARD Consortium funded by European Commission Framework 7 programme (EU FP7; HEALTH.2012.2.4.5-2, project number 305815, Novel Diagnostics and Biomarkers for Early Identification of Chronic Inflammatory Joint Diseases). A. M. has received funding from the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King AbdulAziz University (grant no. 1-141/1434 HiCi). A. M. is also a member of the Arthritis Research UK Centre for Sport, Exercise, and Osteoarthritis, funded by Arthritis Research UK (Grant Reference Number: 20194).

References

  1. Aigner T, Cook JL, Gerwin N, et al. Histopathology atlas of animal model systems – overview of guiding principles. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18(Suppl 3):S2–6. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2010.07.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Almen MS, Nordstrom KJ, Fredriksson R, Schioth HB. Mapping the human membrane proteome: a majority of the human membrane proteins can be classified according to function and evolutionary origin. BMC Biol. 2009;7:50. doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-7-50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Archer CW, Francis-West P. The chondrocyte. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2003;35:401–4. doi: 10.1016/s1357-2725(02)00301-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barrett-Jolley R, Lewis R, Fallman R, Mobasheri A. The emerging chondrocyte channelome. Front Physiol. 2010;1:135. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2010.00135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Benz R. Permeation of hydrophilic solutes through mitochondrial outer membranes: review on mitochondrial porins. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1994;1197:167–96. doi: 10.1016/0304-4157(94)90004-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bordier C. Phase separation of integral membrane proteins in Triton X-114 solution. J Biol Chem. 1981;256:1604–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Capra E, Beretta R, Parazzi V, et al. Changes in the proteomic profile of adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells during passages. Proteome Sci. 2012;10:46. doi: 10.1186/1477-5956-10-46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cecil DL, Terkeltaub R. Transamidation by transglutaminase 2 transforms S100A11 calgranulin into a procatabolic cytokine for chondrocytes. J Immunol. 2008;180:8378–85. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.180.12.8378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cordwell SJ, Thingholm TE. Technologies for plasma membrane proteomics. Proteomics. 2010;10:611–27. doi: 10.1002/pmic.200900521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. De Pinto V, Messina A, Lane DJ, Lawen A. Voltage-dependent anion-selective channel (VDAC) in the plasma membrane. FEBS Lett. 2010;584:1793–9. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2010.02.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Diaz-Romero J, Gaillard JP, Grogan SP, et al. Immunophenotypic analysis of human articular chondrocytes: changes in surface markers associated with cell expansion in monolayer culture. J Cell Physiol. 2005;202:731–42. doi: 10.1002/jcp.20164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dissoki S, Abourbeh G, Salnikov O, et al. PET molecular imaging of angiogenesis with a multiple tyrosine kinase receptor-targeted agent in a rat model of myocardial infarction. Mol Imaging Biol. 2015;17:222–30. doi: 10.1007/s11307-014-0790-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Donato R, Cannon BR, Sorci G, et al. Functions of S100 proteins. Curr Mol Med. 2013;13:24–57. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dunham J, Shackleton DR, Billingham MEJ, et al. A reappraisal of the structure of normal canine articular-cartilage. J Anat. 1988;157:89–99. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. English JA, Manadas B, Scaife C, et al. Partitioning the proteome: phase separation for targeted analysis of membrane proteins in human post-mortem brain. PLoS One. 2012;7:e39509. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Garcia BA, Platt MD, Born TL, et al. Protein profile of osteoarthritic human articular cartilage using tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2006;20:2999–3006. doi: 10.1002/rcm.2692. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hansson SF, Henriksson A, Johansson L, et al. Membrane protein profiling of human islets of langerhans using several extraction methods. Clin Proteom. 2010;6:195–207. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hatakeyama Y, Hatakeyama J, Oka K, et al. Immunohistochemical study of amelogenin and lysosome-associate membrane proteins (LAMPs) in cartilage. Int J Morphol. 2014;32:618–26. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hsueh MF, Onnerfjord P, Kraus VB. Biomarkers and proteomic analysis of osteoarthritis. Matrix Biol. 2014;39:56–66. doi: 10.1016/j.matbio.2014.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kabbani N. Proteomics of membrane receptors and signaling. Proteomics. 2008;8:4146–55. doi: 10.1002/pmic.200800139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. La Rocca G, Lo Iacono M, Corsello T, et al. Human Wharton's jelly mesenchymal stem cells maintain the expression of key immunomodulatory molecules when subjected to osteogenic, adipogenic and chondrogenic differentiation in vitro: new perspectives for cellular therapy. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther. 2013;8:100–13. doi: 10.2174/1574888x11308010012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lambrecht S, Dhaenens M, Almqvist F, et al. Proteome characterization of human articular chondrocytes leads to novel insights in the function of small heat-shock proteins in chondrocyte homeostasis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2010;18:440–6. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2009.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lambrecht S, Verbruggen G, Verdonk PC, et al. Differential proteome analysis of normal and osteoarthritic chondrocytes reveals distortion of vimentin network in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2008;16:163–73. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lewis R, May H, Mobasheri A, Barrett-Jolley R. Chondrocyte channel transcriptomics: do microarray data fit with expression and functional data? Channels (Austin) 2013;7:459–67. doi: 10.4161/chan.26071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mathias RA, Chen YS, Kapp EA, et al. Triton X-114 phase separation in the isolation and purification of mouse liver microsomal membrane proteins. Methods. 2011;54:396–406. doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2011.01.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Matta C, Zakany R, Mobasheri A. Voltage-dependent calcium channels in chondrocytes: roles in health and disease. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2015;17:43. doi: 10.1007/s11926-015-0521-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Mobasheri A. The future of osteoarthritis therapeutics: targeted pharmacological therapy. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2013;15:364. doi: 10.1007/s11926-013-0364-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Mobasheri A, Carter SD, Martin-Vasallo P, Shakibaei M. Integrins and stretch activated ion channels; putative components of functional cell surface mechanoreceptors in articular chondrocytes. Cell Biol Int. 2002a;26:1–18. doi: 10.1006/cbir.2001.0826. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Mobasheri A, Neama G, Bell S, et al. Human articular chondrocytes express three facilitative glucose transporter isoforms: GLUT1, GLUT3 and GLUT9. Cell Biol Int. 2002b;26:297–300. doi: 10.1006/cbir.2001.0850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ode A, Schoon J, Kurtz A, et al. CD73/5'-ecto-nucleotidase acts as a regulatory factor in osteo-/chondrogenic differentiation of mechanically stimulated mesenchymal stromal cells. Eur Cell Mater. 2013;25:37–47. doi: 10.22203/ecm.v025a03. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Orazizadeh M, Salter DM. CD147 (extracellular matrix metalloproteinase inducer-emmprin) expression by human articular chondrocytes. Iran Biomed J. 2008;12:153–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Patti AM, Gabriele A, Della Rocca C. Human chondrocyte cell lines from articular cartilage of metatarsal phalangeal joints. Tissue Cell. 1999;31:550–4. doi: 10.1054/tice.1999.0069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rabilloud T. Membrane proteins ride shotgun. Nat Biotechnol. 2003;21:508–10. doi: 10.1038/nbt0503-508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ruiz-Romero C, Carreira V, Rego I, et al. Proteomic analysis of human osteoarthritic chondrocytes reveals protein changes in stress and glycolysis. Proteomics. 2008;8:495–507. doi: 10.1002/pmic.200700249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Ruiz-Romero C, Lopez-Armada MJ, Blanco FJ. Proteomic characterization of human normal articular chondrocytes: a novel tool for the study of osteoarthritis and other rheumatic diseases. Proteomics. 2005;5:3048–59. doi: 10.1002/pmic.200402106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Samkoe KS, Tichauer KM, Gunn JR, et al. Quantitative in vivo immunohistochemistry of epidermal growth factor receptor using a receptor concentration imaging approach. Cancer Res. 2014;74:7465–74. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Sega EI, Low PS. Tumor detection using folate receptor-targeted imaging agents. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2008;27:655–64. doi: 10.1007/s10555-008-9155-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Shakibaei M, Csaki C, Mobasheri A. Diverse roles of integrin receptors in articular cartilage. Adv Anat Embryol Cell Biol. 2008;197:1–60. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-78771-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Suardita K, Fujimoto K, Oda R, et al. Effects of overexpression of membrane-bound transferrin-like protein (MTf) on chondrogenic differentiation in vitro. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:48579–86. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M209243200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sugimoto T, Yoshino M, Nagao M, et al. Voltage-gated ionic channels in cultured rabbit articular chondrocytes. Comp Biochem Physiol C Pharmacol Toxicol Endocrinol. 1996;115:223–32. doi: 10.1016/s0742-8413(96)00091-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Tsolis KC, Bei ES, Papathanasiou I, et al. Comparative proteomic analysis of hypertrophic chondrocytes in osteoarthritis. Clin Proteomics. 2015;12:12. doi: 10.1186/s12014-015-9085-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Tsuga K, Tohse N, Yoshino M, et al. Chloride conductance determining membrane potential of rabbit articular chondrocytes. J Membr Biol. 2002;185:75–81. doi: 10.1007/s00232-001-0112-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Williams A, Smith JR, Allaway D, et al. Applications of proteomics in cartilage biology and osteoarthritis research. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed) 2011;16:2622–44. doi: 10.2741/3876. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Williams A, Smith JR, Allaway D, et al. Carprofen inhibits the release of matrix metalloproteinases 1, 3, and 13 in the secretome of an explant model of articular cartilage stimulated with interleukin 1β. Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R223. doi: 10.1186/ar4424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Woods VL, Jr, Schreck PJ, Gesink DS, et al. Integrin expression by human articular chondrocytes. Arthritis Rheum. 1994;37:537–44. doi: 10.1002/art.1780370414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wu J, Liu W, Bemis A, et al. Comparative proteomic characterization of articular cartilage tissue from normal donors and patients with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56:3675–84. doi: 10.1002/art.22876. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Yan JX, Wait R, Berkelman T, et al. A modified silver staining protocol for visualization of proteins compatible with matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization and electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry. Electrophoresis. 2000;21:3666–72. doi: 10.1002/1522-2683(200011)21:17<3666::AID-ELPS3666>3.0.CO;2-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhang ZJ, Peck SC. Simplified enrichment of plasma membrane proteins for proteomic analyses in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proteomics. 2011;11:1780–8. doi: 10.1002/pmic.201000648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Biomarkers are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES